There is a fundamental question that you folks need to deal with, which is that the economics versus the potential environment or health effects is very difficult to balance at times. You didn't get into the business to protect the environment. You get into the business to make money selling chemicals or creating new ones and inventing new things.
This is my question. There was some hesitation toward government regulations and the pace of the regulating of some of the worst chemicals. Of the 4,000 that we now know as being listed, has it not always been the case that there's a natural hesitancy in industry to resist against regulations? I'm thinking of lead in gasoline, I'm thinking of cigarette smoking, I'm thinking of seat belts, where industry can talk about the difficulty in preserving an economic viability of a company versus a proposed health benefit to the general society. Are we not facing the same question again here in CEPA?